Can memetics become a science?

From: dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.cyberspace,soc.history.science
Subject: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: 12 Jun 1995 01:07:24 -0700
::CAN MEMETICS BECOME A SCIENCE?::
In his book "Symbols, Signals And Noise"; Pierce makes a
provacative statement which runs roughly as follows.
"If somebody claims to fully understand a problem, it is
legitimate to ask them to express it in a computer 'language'"
The feature which separated physics (at least in many peoples
minds) from the "soft sciences" such as biology was that physics
could be expressed in the formal logic of mathematics.
Cybernetics has produced sets of logics which can model other
behaviors and allow us to test them.
Bits and pieces of biology fit naturally into logics which are
widely availble. The kingdoms of life can be arranged in a Unix
hierachy of files. If some species are in controversial niches
then they can be linked into 2 or more directories. If
alternative means of mapping are used these can exist in parallel
with links to the classical forms.
The problem is that a lot of what we think we know does not exist
in such rigidly defined categories. It is "fuzzy". This is
where much of biology and most of the social "sciences" are.
They often pretend otherwise, but deep down there is a lot of
physics envy.
Memetics has two choices. It can continue to cling to the less
than precise statements of biology or it can move biology towards
a more formal structure.
Memetics can be used to create formal logics which interact in
artificial "eco-logies" which (if correct) can turn parts of
biology into a more rigid discipline.
This is an arduous task. It is "complex engineering". A "non
complex engineering" is (eg.) the design of an airplane which can
involve hundreds of people puzzling things out and then requires
physical prototypes to fully understand. Only a handful of basic
physics principles are used in the thing.
Biological systems not only use basic physical processes, they
have built this into a many layered set of logics. Thousands may
be relevant enough to measure in even a quick glance at a system.
However it is to be hoped that many if not most of these can be
built with a relatively small number of primitive logics. Just
as mathematics covers an amazing subset a few simple "languages"
such as McCarthys tree logic will allow the representation of
many levels of interelated complex material.
Memetics would have to go beyond this, it would have to find
useful styles of information propagation between these pieces.
I am not optimistic about this process. As a general rule
biologists are very ignorant about the nature of information
systems. Those who think they know something are worse.
::An Example Of Lack Of General Computer Knowlege::
In the thirties a man named Turing through together a seven set
logic which could (in theory) solve all computable tasks. In the
forties a man named Von Neumann roughed out a machine which was a
superset of the Turing machine. The Turing machine worked on a
"logical tape". Randam access (Von Neu) memory can easily
represent a stream(s) of data. It creates a logical tape system
and thus has unlimited compuatational capacity. Of course it is
held up by the same things which limit the Turing model, it lacks
infinite memory and processing power and (most importantly) we
don't know what to do with all theoretical capacity to solve all
tasks which can be formalized.
Logics which can (in theory) solve everything are all over the
place. In the fifties McCarthy built such a seven member logic
which was also a superset of the Turing algebra. I have
discovered such a set myself.
Unfortunatly pop computing tends to ignore this. "Uh Wow! A
machine which could solve everything. If only we could have a
Turing Machine!"
::ANOTHER EXAMPLE::
I once read an otherwise interesting book on the brain in which a
"young: researcher described a natural language parsing system
using a few stacks and a couple other rudimentary logics. He
claimed this was a working model for language process (or one
aspect of it), but curreny computers were incapable of handling
it. He had never heard of software. The problem with his logic
was not our inability to represent it. My impression was that it
didn't say anything neu and it was certainly incomplete. (Far
from proven, yet it treated it as though it were sound).
::THE FUTURE::
We now have a large cadre of young scholars running off to learn
things like C++, but neglecting the general "systems principles"
that can actually let them represent their subject.
Memetics offers an opportunity to build logics which represent a
new class of problem. If a process can be expressed as an
unambiguous set of steps, then it can be represented and mixed
with other processes. The problem is not in the coding, but in
a well defined algorithm.
This is the only way that memetics can distiniguish itself from
Plato and Kant and others who made plausible speculation on the
nature of thought and ideas.

Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.cyberspace,soc.history.science
From: wware@world.std.com (Will Ware)
Subject: Re: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:29:12 GMT
Andrea Chen (dbennett@crl.com) wrote:
: [ Memetics would gain credibility if its ideas could be expressed
: in formal terms such as mathematics or programming. ]
: Memetics can be used to create formal logics which interact in
: artificial "eco-logies" which (if correct) can turn parts of
: biology into a more rigid discipline.
This is a very interesting idea. I myself don't care about reforming
biology; those guys are doing well enough already, and memetics is IMHO
too small a tail to wag the dog. But if ideas of memetics could be
captured and demonstrated in a computer program that would be a good
and cool thing.
: This is an arduous task. It is "complex engineering". A "non
: complex engineering" is (eg.) the design of an airplane which can
: involve hundreds of people puzzling things out and then requires
: physical prototypes to fully understand. Only a handful of basic
: physics principles are used in the thing.
Simulations vary in the degree of their detail. A fully detailed
simulation of the spread of a meme would be terribly complex; probably
impossible since it would need to simulate many chance events (Kafka
vacations in Yosemite Nat'l Park, bumps into Hemingway, they end up
talking about who knows what, and the world of literature takes a new
direction).
By careful choice of simplifying assumptions, we can get simpler, less
computation-intensive simulations that still have interesting things to
say, but are feasible with reasonable amounts of person- and CPU-time.
Were this not the case, the physicists would also still be suffering
physics envy.
: [ Some guy invented a formal language and ]
: claimed this was a working model for language process (or one
: aspect of it), but curreny computers were incapable of handling
: it. He had never heard of software. The problem with his logic
: was not our inability to represent it. My impression was that it
: didn't say anything neu and it was certainly incomplete. (Far
: from proven, yet it treated it as though it were sound).
Charles Babbage could get away with this excuse, but not this guy.
*Enormous* formal systems have been implemented on computers. If he's
ignorant of software, there's no way he can explain it away as a
failure of current computer technology.
As for the author's blind acceptance of the guy's piteous whining,
the explanation for that is simple. The author started out with some
point in mind. The guy with the unimplementable language looked like
an example or proof of that point. The author now had a powerful
interesting in vindicating the guy, regardless of the validity of
his claim.
: We now have a large cadre of young scholars running off to learn
: things like C++, but neglecting the general "systems principles"
: that can actually let them represent their subject.
This is not a fault of computer languages. It is a short-sightedness
on somebody's part; the *very best* thing we could do for "systems
principles" would be to write formal expressions of them in something
like C++. Expressing them in a formal language, particularly one that
runs on a computer, facilitates teaching and simulation, and deepens
our understanding of those principles.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware <wware@world.std.com> PGP fp 45A8722CD14910CC F0CF48FB93BF7289
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force. Like
fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - G. Washington

From: djeopm@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.cyberspace,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 11:09:52 -0400
In article <3rgsjs$mnp@crl10.crl.com>, Andrea Chen <dbennett@crl.com> wrote:
>
>The feature which separated physics (at least in many peoples
>minds) from the "soft sciences" such as biology was that physics
>could be expressed in the formal logic of mathematics.
>Cybernetics has produced sets of logics which can model other
>behaviors and allow us to test them.
That the belief exists in many people's minds does not make it true or
accurate. I think anyone who has worked in genetics might be better
informed and disagree (and the issue of "soft" vs "hard" sciences, as was
pointed out in the Meme thread in alt.cyberpunk last month, is pretty much
either a) academic infighting or b) journalistic bottom-feeding).
>Bits and pieces of biology fit naturally into logics which are
>widely availble. The kingdoms of life can be arranged in a Unix
>hierachy of files. If some species are in controversial niches
>then they can be linked into 2 or more directories. If
>alternative means of mapping are used these can exist in parallel
>with links to the classical forms.
A note: The taxonomies of antique biological disciplines (that they were
mostly systems of classification rather than sciences) probably inspired
such diverse structures as the Dewey Decimal System and the NFS.
And binarism has not been unknown to genetics since Mendel. That
contemporary evolutionary sciences and computer programming and modeling
have been paired since the beginning of the use of computers in academic
research is also undenialble.
It seems to me that the rhetorical structure of your argument (no matter
whether it expresses a genuine need) may work against gaining the support
and cooperation of the people who could most contribute to it.
>Memetics has two choices. It can continue to cling to the less
>than precise statements of biology or it can move biology towards
>a more formal structure.
That "Memetics" may or may not be a valid discipline in someone's opinion
depends on their opinion about "cultural evolution" pre-empting the place
of "biological evolution". If one accepts that that pre-emption is true,
then the next question would be whether the concept of "memes" provides
an accurate and workable hypothesis. If it does, then the criteria and
methodologies of evolutionary science in general, and genetics in
particular can be applied with validity to "Memetics".
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "I arise, a corpse already wept, and live."
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O --Maximian
|| OO|||OO||O||O

Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.cyberspace,soc.history.science
From: wware@world.std.com (Will Ware)
Subject: Re: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:29:12 GMT
Andrea Chen (dbennett@crl.com) wrote:
: [ Memetics would gain credibility if its ideas could be expressed
: in formal terms such as mathematics or programming. ]
: Memetics can be used to create formal logics which interact in
: artificial "eco-logies" which (if correct) can turn parts of
: biology into a more rigid discipline.
This is a very interesting idea. I myself don't care about reforming
biology; those guys are doing well enough already, and memetics is IMHO
too small a tail to wag the dog. But if ideas of memetics could be
captured and demonstrated in a computer program that would be a good
and cool thing.
: This is an arduous task. It is "complex engineering". A "non
: complex engineering" is (eg.) the design of an airplane which can
: involve hundreds of people puzzling things out and then requires
: physical prototypes to fully understand. Only a handful of basic
: physics principles are used in the thing.
Simulations vary in the degree of their detail. A fully detailed
simulation of the spread of a meme would be terribly complex; probably
impossible since it would need to simulate many chance events (Kafka
vacations in Yosemite Nat'l Park, bumps into Hemingway, they end up
talking about who knows what, and the world of literature takes a new
direction).
By careful choice of simplifying assumptions, we can get simpler, less
computation-intensive simulations that still have interesting things to
say, but are feasible with reasonable amounts of person- and CPU-time.
Were this not the case, the physicists would also still be suffering
physics envy.
: [ Some guy invented a formal language and ]
: claimed this was a working model for language process (or one
: aspect of it), but curreny computers were incapable of handling
: it. He had never heard of software. The problem with his logic
: was not our inability to represent it. My impression was that it
: didn't say anything neu and it was certainly incomplete. (Far
: from proven, yet it treated it as though it were sound).
Charles Babbage could get away with this excuse, but not this guy.
*Enormous* formal systems have been implemented on computers. If he's
ignorant of software, there's no way he can explain it away as a
failure of current computer technology.
As for the author's blind acceptance of the guy's piteous whining,
the explanation for that is simple. The author started out with some
point in mind. The guy with the unimplementable language looked like
an example or proof of that point. The author now had a powerful
interesting in vindicating the guy, regardless of the validity of
his claim.
: We now have a large cadre of young scholars running off to learn
: things like C++, but neglecting the general "systems principles"
: that can actually let them represent their subject.
This is not a fault of computer languages. It is a short-sightedness
on somebody's part; the *very best* thing we could do for "systems
principles" would be to write formal expressions of them in something
like C++. Expressing them in a formal language, particularly one that
runs on a computer, facilitates teaching and simulation, and deepens
our understanding of those principles.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware <wware@world.std.com> PGP fp 45A8722CD14910CC F0CF48FB93BF7289
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force. Like
fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - G. Washington

From: djeopm@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.cyberspace,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 11:09:52 -0400
In article <3rgsjs$mnp@crl10.crl.com>, Andrea Chen <dbennett@crl.com> wrote:
>
>The feature which separated physics (at least in many peoples
>minds) from the "soft sciences" such as biology was that physics
>could be expressed in the formal logic of mathematics.
>Cybernetics has produced sets of logics which can model other
>behaviors and allow us to test them.
That the belief exists in many people's minds does not make it true or
accurate. I think anyone who has worked in genetics might be better
informed and disagree (and the issue of "soft" vs "hard" sciences, as was
pointed out in the Meme thread in alt.cyberpunk last month, is pretty much
either a) academic infighting or b) journalistic bottom-feeding).
>Bits and pieces of biology fit naturally into logics which are
>widely availble. The kingdoms of life can be arranged in a Unix
>hierachy of files. If some species are in controversial niches
>then they can be linked into 2 or more directories. If
>alternative means of mapping are used these can exist in parallel
>with links to the classical forms.
A note: The taxonomies of antique biological disciplines (that they were
mostly systems of classification rather than sciences) probably inspired
such diverse structures as the Dewey Decimal System and the NFS.
And binarism has not been unknown to genetics since Mendel. That
contemporary evolutionary sciences and computer programming and modeling
have been paired since the beginning of the use of computers in academic
research is also undenialble.
It seems to me that the rhetorical structure of your argument (no matter
whether it expresses a genuine need) may work against gaining the support
and cooperation of the people who could most contribute to it.
>Memetics has two choices. It can continue to cling to the less
>than precise statements of biology or it can move biology towards
>a more formal structure.
That "Memetics" may or may not be a valid discipline in someone's opinion
depends on their opinion about "cultural evolution" pre-empting the place
of "biological evolution". If one accepts that that pre-emption is true,
then the next question would be whether the concept of "memes" provides
an accurate and workable hypothesis. If it does, then the criteria and
methodologies of evolutionary science in general, and genetics in
particular can be applied with validity to "Memetics".
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "I arise, a corpse already wept, and live."
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O --Maximian
|| OO|||OO||O||O

Newsgroups: alt.memetics
From: wware@world.std.com (Will Ware)
Subject: Re: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 01:43:22 GMT
Andre-
I found your note very interesting. I'm taking the liberty of posting this
response, which includes parts of your note, to the newsgroup; I hope this
is OK with you. The thread was originally started by Andrea Chen, and it
would be useful to get her thoughts as well as those of others who might be
interested. Besides, some of these folks might like to work on the project
you propose.
If memory serves, Andrea began the thread by observing that (a) "memetics"
was too mushy yet to be called a "science", and (b) it lacks a formal
language like mathematics (or source code), and (c) there was probably
a causal relation happening here. I proposed that a fun and interesting
way to create a formal language for memetics would be writing meme simulation
software.
Andre' Slabber <Andre\'.Slabber@p9.f706.n281.z2.gds.nl> writes:
> [agreement that meme simulation software is a good idea]
> Would you care to combine our efforts and start on
> "the Memetic Framework" in C++? We could work together on it, and see what
> we can come up with.
This is a good idea. Except, embarassingly, I don't yet know C++! I am
pretty proficient with C, and have some C++ books I've been meaning to
read real soon now, so this is probably just the thing to prompt me.
Your message arrived just one day after I had an idea about writing a
generic library of functions for evolution-related software (for example,
developing genetic algorithms, or simulating memes). I had envisioned a
library that could be linked into various applications, of which the
"Memetic Framework" would be one. (I confess that I covet the honor of
someday being a contributor to the Gnu library, and a general evolution
library struck me as a possible candidate for this.)
I hadn't gotten very far with the idea, other than to decide that it was
probably acceptable to represent all genomes as character strings, and to
assign each genome a population of individuals with precisely that genome.
I had tentatively started thinking about adding library routines for the
mechanisms of genetic variation: random spot mutation (e.g. gamma rays),
shuffling and swapping (the results of sex), and so on. My knowledge of
these is pretty vague so I'd need to research it. That would account for
variation; selection would be almost entirely the application's job.
The idea of a distinct library of genetics routines still appeals to me,
as it would mean that that body of code would not be restricted to use
only in the context of a meme simulator.
> Basically, I think that the program should model the meme theory as we
> understand it now in a general way.
Sounds good to me. I think it's important to start with something that
isn't overwhelmingly difficult. I notice that nothing kills one of my
hobby projects so effectively as the suspicion that it can't be done with
the time and effort I'm willing to put in.
> We could try to build a newer form of the LIFE program, that is not based on a
> fixed grid of cells. The beings in this MEMETIC WORLD would roam free, and
> could potentially bump into one another. We could devise a type of dialog,
> which is one of the mechanisms by which memes travel. This would need some
> sort of fuzzy matching technique to let the parties in the dialog select
> suitable memes to use in reply to the incoming meme.
> Procreation would also be designed in, by mixing the meme sets of two beings,
> and randomly selecting say 25% of the total as the starting set for the new
> being.
I think these issues deserve a lot of thinking before we get anywhere near
writing code. The question of what kind of space these things live in,
and how they move around, is probably worth a lot of thought. If we stick
close to a genetic model, then there would be some mechanism where an
individual's memes were "interpreted" (as with RNA and ribosomes and all
that) and ultimately resulted in observable behavior in the environment.
There would need to be a mechanism, I think, whereby another organism's
observation of this behavior could modify the observer's memes.
In "The Extended Phenotype", Dawkins said something that clarified for me
what precisely he had in mind when he used the word "meme". He didn't mean
the observable behavior (which he would analogize to a "phenotypic effect"),
he meant the pattern of neurological connections that caused that behavior.
Such neurological patterns are the things that are replicated through
this complex process of interpretation/expression, and recreation in the
observer's brain. I don't think such a replicative pattern has yet been
documented by any neurophysiologist, but what little I know of neuro-
physiology says that this is a plausible model.
So I tentatively propose a model like this:
1. Meme in brain circuitry gets "interpreted" and causes:
2. Behavior, which is observable to other organisms
3. Observation of that behavior, thru some process can modify:
4. Memes in observer's brain circuitry.
This model may seem round-about (rather than, say, an explicitly designed
mechanism to directly replicate memes in the other organism's "memome"), but
that strikes me as a virtue. I think this round-about-ness is part of what
makes real live genetics and memetics so colorful and diverse. The downside
is that it might take *lots* of tinkering early on before we started getting
observable replication of identifiable memes.
> ...CROBOTS... I think that this is the wrong approach for our project:
> Survival of the individual is not the sole purpose (or soul purpose?) of the
> beings in the MEMETIC WORLD.
Agreed. I've been to a CROBOTS tournament, and it was interesting in its
own way, but not what's wanted for this. I try to stay close to Dawkins'
original reasoning when I think about memes (it's the only way to keep my
bearings), where the behavior of organisms is shaped by evolutionary
competition not between species or organisms themselves, but between
individual genes.
There's another piece of software called "Tierra", by a guy named Tom Ray,
which is designed to create little computer programs by evolutionary means.
To prevent damage to the host computer, the Tierra world is implemented in
a safe "virtual space" so that the replicating programs can't play with the
computer's OS or other vitals. Ray envisions some day setting aside room on
thousands or millions of workstations, each representing a small patch of a
huge Tierra world, where programs would wander about, growing, competing,
and replicating. This world would be lurked by "zoologists" who would watch
the landscape and document species as real zoologists do. When a program
emerged that did something interesting, it could be "tamed" and put into
service as a commercial software product.
It might conceivably be useful to study the Tierra software. Perhaps it
could be adapted for use as a meme simulator, or at least portions of it
could be borrowed. Ray has an extensive background as a field zoologist,
so he's probably got a pretty credible analogy for the biology.
> we would have to devise a way to
> monitor the minds of our beings, and to see which memes or meme sets become
> successful and which didn't.
> To have a general overview of the population, we could give them a color that
> corresponds to the strongest meme (set) in their mind.
We will certainly want something like this, zoological instruments if you
will. I suspect that these kinds of things will be pretty easy, once some of
the more fundamental stuff has been done (like how do memes vary, replicate,
modify behavior, get modified by behavior, etc). BTW, I don't know if there
is such a thing in a "strongest meme" in one's mind. I am not aware of a
"strongest gene" in my body. But there is still meaningful genetic info
(e.g. I am a human, not a zebra) that might correspond to something worth
color-coding.
(Ok, I lied. I'm a zebra. Typing is hell for me. I have to hold a pencil
in my mouth and hunt and peck, and human language makes my head hurt.
There's some kind of beat frequency between the vertical sweep of the
monitor and the clock rate of the zebra cortex, so with my large body
mass, I'm gobbling Tylenols like they're M&Ms.)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware <wware@world.std.com> PGP fp 45A8722CD14910CC F0CF48FB93BF7289
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force. Like
fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - G. Washington

Newsgroups: alt.memetics
From: wware@world.std.com (Will Ware)
Subject: Re: Can Memetcics Become A Science?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 18:57:06 GMT
Posting on Andre's behalf:
To: wware@world.std.com
From: "Andre' Slabber" <Andre\'.Slabber@p9.f706.n281.z2.gds.nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 17:43:29 +0200
Subject: Memetic Framework
hello Will,
> I found your note very interesting. I'm taking the liberty of posting this
> response, which includes parts of your note, to the newsgroup; I hope this
> is OK with you. The thread was originally started by Andrea Chen, and it
> would be useful to get her thoughts as well as those of others who might be
> interested. Besides, some of these folks might like to work on the project
> you propose.
Fine with me! The more we work together, the more we will achieve. So, anyone
wanting to join the effort: feel free!
> > Would you care to combine our efforts and start on
> > "the Memetic Framework" in C++? We could work together on it, and see what
> > we can come up with.
> This is a good idea. Except, embarassingly, I don't yet know C++! I am
> pretty proficient with C, and have some C++ books I've been meaning to
> read real soon now, so this is probably just the thing to prompt me.
Now is as good a time as any! You would probably have the added value of my
reasonable eloquence in C++....
> Your message arrived just one day after I had an idea about writing a
> generic library of functions for evolution-related software (for example,
> developing genetic algorithms, or simulating memes). I had envisioned a
> library that could be linked into various applications, of which the
> "Memetic Framework" would be one. (I confess that I covet the honor of
> someday being a contributor to the Gnu library, and a general evolution
> library struck me as a possible candidate for this.)
Talk about synchronicity... ;-) I too would like to take part in such a huge
public domain effort, but other worldly concerns have prevented this thus far.
Not for the honor, but because it is just another step towards Infinite Unity.
> I hadn't gotten very far with the idea, other than to decide that it was
> probably acceptable to represent all genomes as character strings, and to
> assign each genome a population of individuals with precisely that genome.
> I had tentatively started thinking about adding library routines for the
> mechanisms of genetic variation: random spot mutation (e.g. gamma rays),
> shuffling and swapping (the results of sex), and so on. My knowledge of
> these is pretty vague so I'd need to research it. That would account for
> variation; selection would be almost entirely the application's job.
Sounds like a nice point to start. In a concept known as genetic programming,
the 'genomes' are a represented a bit more functional as arithmetic functions
that are let loose on a certain set of test data. The results of these test
runs are then used to create new functions through mutations, selection and
other mechanisms of genetic variation which hopefully fit the test data more
accurately.
> The idea of a distinct library of genetics routines still appeals to me,
> as it would mean that that body of code would not be restricted to use
> only in the context of a meme simulator.
Totally in line with the UNIX philosophy: do one thing and do it well! By
putting those small perfectly performing things together you achieve the
bigger tasks.
> > Basically, I think that the program should model the meme theory as we
> > understand it now in a general way.
>
> Sounds good to me. I think it's important to start with something that
> isn't overwhelmingly difficult. I notice that nothing kills one of my
> hobby projects so effectively as the suspicion that it can't be done with
> the time and effort I'm willing to put in.
Another killer for me is having to do it all by myself... The absence of a
sparring partner removes the momentum from my ideas. (Perhaps I am not
schizophrenic enough? ;-))
> I think these issues deserve a lot of thinking before we get anywhere near
> writing code. The question of what kind of space these things live in,
> and how they move around, is probably worth a lot of thought.
Certainly, the idea I gave about the PMLIFE variation was just an example off
the top of my head. I too will have to do some studying, but I was hoping to
at least get some help on this from the more biologically inclined people on
the net. My strong points lie in an analytical mind, a very curious nature,
and a thorough education in electronics and computers.
> If we stick close to a genetic model, then there would be some mechanism
> where an individual's memes were "interpreted" (as with RNA and ribosomes
> and all that) and ultimately resulted in observable behavior in the
> environment. There would need to be a mechanism, I think, whereby another
> organism's observation of this behavior could modify the observer's memes.
Of course, because body language is also a way of communicating. This weekend
I just read the selfish gene, and it occurred to me that our project could
be going through the same type of evolution that Dawkins describes. Starting
combinatory variations, on towards the copiers, and so on...
> In "The Extended Phenotype", Dawkins said something that clarified for me
> what precisely he had in mind when he used the word "meme". He didn't mean
> the observable behavior (which he would analogize to a "phenotypic effect"),
> he meant the pattern of neurological connections that caused that behavior.
> Such neurological patterns are the things that are replicated through
> this complex process of interpretation/expression, and recreation in the
> observer's brain. I don't think such a replicative pattern has yet been
> documented by any neurophysiologist, but what little I know of neuro-
> physiology says that this is a plausible model.
I haven't read the book yet, but I'll get to it as soon as possible. From my
own perception of how my mind works, I'd say it was pretty accurate too. I
frequently get insight into things by trying to explain them to someone else.
> So I tentatively propose a model like this:
> 1. Meme in brain circuitry gets "interpreted" and causes:
> 2. Behavior, which is observable to other organisms
> 3. Observation of that behavior, thru some process can modify:
> 4. Memes in observer's brain circuitry.
>
> This model may seem round-about (rather than, say, an explicitly designed
> mechanism to directly replicate memes in the other organism's "memome"), but
> that strikes me as a virtue. I think this round-about-ness is part of what
> makes real live genetics and memetics so colorful and diverse. The downside
> is that it might take *lots* of tinkering early on before we started getting
> observable replication of identifiable memes.
We are making a model aren't we? I'd say that if we perceive this
round-about-ness, we should at least design it in from the start. If our
developing understanding of the model proves this to be incorrect, we can
optimize it out later on. Don't be afraid to throw anything away.
> I try to stay close to Dawkins' original reasoning when I think about
> memes (it's the only way to keep my bearings), where the behavior of
> organisms is shaped by evolutionary competition not between species
> or organisms themselves, but between individual genes.
As long as we have no obvious reason to prove him wrong, I think that would
be the way to go. I have a bit of a funny feeling about that selfishness, but
perhaps further study in this area will help me clear that up.
> There's another piece of software called "Tierra", by a guy named Tom Ray,
> which is designed to create little computer programs by evolutionary means.
> To prevent damage to the host computer, the Tierra world is implemented in
> a safe "virtual space" so that the replicating programs can't play with the
> computer's OS or other vitals.
Interesting piece of software. Do you have more info on that?
Creating a safe space is necessary. We have only to look to the real world
to see some of the dangers that could evolve.....
> It might conceivably be useful to study the Tierra software. Perhaps it
> could be adapted for use as a meme simulator, or at least portions of it
> could be borrowed. Ray has an extensive background as a field zoologist,
> so he's probably got a pretty credible analogy for the biology.
Sounds interesting anyway, but I am not sure if Ray would let us. It's worth
looking into though...
> We will certainly want something like this, zoological instruments if you
> will. I suspect that these kinds of things will be pretty easy, once some of
> the more fundamental stuff has been done (like how do memes vary, replicate,
> modify behavior, get modified by behavior, etc).
Actually, they will be even easier if we keep this point in mind from the
start. I'm thinking here of some type of 'inspector': We look at the world
from an overview, can zoom in until we have selectable beings in view, and
then double-click them to pop up the inspector dialog. This would be some
sort of operating theater that would allow us to look inside it's head to see
what memes are there. By keeping global data in the meme code, we could even
crosslink to see where the meme has come from, and how it has evolved over
time. The easiest way to do this kind of stuff would be to build it in from
the start.
> BTW, I don't know if there is such a thing as a "strongest meme" in one's
> mind. I am not aware of a "strongest gene" in my body. But there is still
> meaningful genetic info (e.g. I am a human, not a zebra) that might
> correspond to something worth color-coding.
Perhaps that was not a smart remark on my part, but I am still learning...
>From personal experience I would say that I have some sort of a meme inside
me that does dictate most of my behaviour. Basically, it refers to the way
people learn: I am a thinker, always wanting to know how things work. I need
to understand before I can remember. Another learning type is the crammer,
who just jams in the rules and lists, and works from them without truly
understanding. I think there are a few more, but I can't remember them right
now.
> (Ok, I lied. I'm a zebra. Typing is hell for me. I have to hold a pencil
> in my mouth and hunt and peck, and human language makes my head hurt.
> There's some kind of beat frequency between the vertical sweep of the
> monitor and the clock rate of the zebra cortex, so with my large body
> mass, I'm gobbling Tylenols like they're M&Ms.)
Seems to me like you have a few options here:
1. Commit suicide and come back as a human being.
2. Learn to talk, and use a voice recognition program to do the typing.
3. Get one of them easy-to-use zebra keypads.
4. None of the above, since this was a joke ;->
As I'm still working on that newsgroup access from my home, feel free to post
this to the newsgroup on my behalf.
all the best, Andr Slabber
They say that knowledge is power, but I'd rather have real knowledge and
imaginary power than real power and imaginary knowledge.
Internet: Slabber@p9.f706.n281.z2.gds.nl
FIDO-Net: 2:281/706.9
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware <wware@world.std.com> web - http://world.std.com/~wware/"
PGP fingerprint 45A8 722C D149 10CC F0CF 48FB 93BF 7289
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force. Like